"Historic" is the word that EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have used to praise the newly adopted "Al Act". Despite the fact that something historical has been achieved here, the reactions to the framework agreement on dealing with artificial intelligence were quite sniffy. Iris Plöger from the BDI sees the competitiveness and innovative capacity of manufacturers and users as being jeopardised. A "regulatory roadblock" was recognised by Bernhard Rohleder, from the industry association Bitkom. Even lawyers, who could potentially benefit from strict regulation, are cautious. The phase now must be used to work out the technical details, says lawyer Marieke Merkle from the law firm Noerr. Otherwise, the EU faces the most unfavourable combination: "Unclear rules with high fines." This would also lead to the risk of overcompliance.

Only consumer protection organisations were reasonably satisfied. It is a noble goal to protect EU citizens from the dangers of a rapidly developing AI. However, the primary consequence of brash intervention in the market is likely to be that competitors from China and the US will be able to outpace their European rivals. This is because the Americans are only at the beginning of their regulatory talks. In a nutshell, it can be summarised as follows: The US has a technological lead, and the Europeans have a regulatory lead. A dubious success. After all, practically every US quasi-monopoly in the tech sector has emerged when there was initially no fixed legal framework. This is because users prioritise efficiency and convenience. As could be seen with Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Netflix.

There may now be parliamentarians who argue that AI and the associated risks cannot be left to chance. However, the EU can hardly prevent advances being made in other regions. Historically, innovation through regulation has not worked. When it comes to the technical details of implementation, we would, therefore, like to call on the EU to put the brakes on reporting obligations. After all, compliance costs hit young European start-ups much harder than US heavyweights such as Microsoft - especially when put in relation to sales volumes.